Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the application is being finally decided today. 2. This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-18 of 2009 registered with Vapi Udyognagar Police Station, Vapi Town, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 484, 485 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons (five in number), including the applicant, who is accused No. 2 and is the wife of accused No. 1, are involved in the commission of the above-mentioned offences in hatching a conspiracy and executing the same in the manner as described hereinbelow, whereby the complainant was induced to part with a huge sum of money, to the tune of about 4,73,40,000/-, in cash, by cheques and demand drafts, the substantial part of which ultimately came to be deposited in the bank account of accused No. 1, who transferred it to the accounts of the applicant (accused No. 2), who, in turn, operated the said accounts, and movable and immovable properties in large sums were purchased therefrom, in her name. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No. 1, husband of the applicant, in collusion with accused No. 5, who was the then Manager of Dena Bank, Vapi branch, hatched a conspiracy assuring the complainant and two others that the said Bank has charge over certain property which is being auctioned by an order of the High Court of Gujarat. The investigation revealed that the said order of the High Court of Gujarat is a purportedly forged and fabricated one and not only is it alleged that the order has been forged but the allegation is also to the effect that the signature of the Honourable Judge purported to have passed the said order, as well as that of the Assistant Registrar of the High Court, have also been forged. On the basis of the above order, the complainant and two others were assured by the accused persons that they would be given charge of the said property after making payment, and in this manner, the complainant parted with an amount of about Rs. 8,73,40,000/- in cash, and by demand drafts and cheques, which were deposited in the account of accused No. 1, in the name of R.K. Engineering at Dena Bank, Vapi. It is the case of the prosecution that from the account of the accused No. 1, huge amounts were transferred to the accounts of the applicant, who is the wife of accused No. 1 and several immovable properties and certain movable properties were purchased in the name of the applicant from the funds withdrawn from her accounts, and in this manner, the applicant is involved in the commission of the above-mentioned offences. 4. Mr. Hriday C. Buch, learned Advocate, for Mr. Kiran Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant, has made the following submissions: (a) That the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is a semi-literate lady, who has studied only upto 4th class. She is married to the accused No. 1 for the past thirty years and has six children, being four daughters and two sons, out of whom, two daughters are of marriageable age. The accused No. 1 may have purchased the properties in her name and operated and dealt with the bank accounts which are in her name and as the applicant does not have control over her husband and could not confront him or tell him that he is indulging in cheating, she has unwittingly been involved in the above-mentioned offences. (b) That the applicant has been taken into custody on 13.03.2009 when she was travelling in a car with accused No. 1 (her husband) and accused No. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that a bag containing forged stamps and several other incriminating articles have been recovered from the car in which the applicant was travelling. However, none of these articles have been recovered from her personal handbag, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was found to be in possession of the said articles. (c) That there is no evidence on record indicating the role alleged to have been played by the applicant in the commission of the above-mentioned offences. However, none of these articles have been recovered from her personal handbag, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was found to be in possession of the said articles. (c) That there is no evidence on record indicating the role alleged to have been played by the applicant in the commission of the above-mentioned offences. The properties have been purchased in the name of the applicant by her husband (accused No. 1), may be because lesser amount of stamp duty is payable in the State of Gujarat if documents are executed in the name of a lady. In fact, it is the accused No. 1 who had done everything with the help of other co-accused and the conspiracy, if any, has been executed by the accused No. 1 but the applicant is not involved in any manner in the commission of the above-mentioned offences. (d) That the role alleged to have been played by the applicant has been mentioned in a statement by one of the co-accused persons only to the extent that the applicant was present when the accused persons used to meet in her house. However, the statement of the co-accused cannot be taken into consideration after filing of the charge-sheet and if this statement is not considered, there is no evidence worth the name against the applicant. (e) That the case of the prosecution rests solely upon documentary evidence which is already in their possession and as there is no apprehension that the applicant is likely to tamper with the evidence or pressurize witnesses, no fruitful purpose would be served if the applicant is kept in custody any longer. (f) That the applicant is a lady who has been in custody with effect from 13.03.2009 and as a lady, she is entitled to certain concessions in law as enumerated in Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (g) That the offences are Triable by the Court of Magistrate and as there are 90 witnesses, it is not likely that the Trial will conclude expeditiously. (h) That in a similar case, i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 11132 of 2009, this Court (Coram: Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) by an order dated 05.10.2009, has granted bail to six accused persons who are ladies, in an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the present application may be allowed. 5. (h) That in a similar case, i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 11132 of 2009, this Court (Coram: Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) by an order dated 05.10.2009, has granted bail to six accused persons who are ladies, in an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the present application may be allowed. 5. The application has been strongly opposed by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by making the following submissions: (i) There is ample evidence on record that the applicant is very much a part of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to dupe the complainant and two others into parting with huge sums of money in cash, Demand Drafts and cheques, which sums have found their way into the account of accused No. 1, husband of the applicant, and have been transferred into the account of the applicant. From these amounts, properties worth huge sums have been purchased in the name of the applicant. (ii) The applicant is the sole operator of her Bank accounts and has signed the cheques herself, and therefore it cannot be said that she is unaware of the transactions that have been made by the accused persons as a part of the conspiracy. (iii) The properties have been purchased by registered sale-deeds by the applicant who has appended her signatures on the said sale-deeds. Not only that, there is material on record to show that loans have been obtained from the Banks against those properties, the money of which has been used to purchase other properties. All this shows that the applicant is in the knowledge of the transactions and is very much a part of the conspiracy. (iv) The applicant has four Bank accounts, three of which are in her personal name and one in the name of R.K Enterprise and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is a semi-literate domesticated housewife who did not know what her husband (accused No. 1) was doing. (v) That it is the very nature of conspiracy that it is hatched and carried out in secrecy and, therefore, it is not necessary that there should be visible or specific incidents regarding the involvement of the applicant in the conspiracy, but the same can be inferred from the material on record. (v) That it is the very nature of conspiracy that it is hatched and carried out in secrecy and, therefore, it is not necessary that there should be visible or specific incidents regarding the involvement of the applicant in the conspiracy, but the same can be inferred from the material on record. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, there is prima-facie material on record against the applicant which indicates her knowledge and active involvement in the commission of the above-mentioned offences. (vi) That the applicant applicant has dealt with huge sums of money, i.e. about eight crores, from her Bank accounts and has entered into various transactions for purchase of properties and from the above circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume a fact and as per Section 114 of the said Act, the Court may presume existence of certain facts, regarding the involvement of the applicant. (vii) Several articles and incriminating material have been recovered from the car in which the applicant, accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 were travelling and the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the articles were not found from her personal handbag is not significant, as the applicant was travelling in the same car. (viii) That the offence is of a grave and serious nature and the seriousness of the offence is enhanced by the fact that the fountainhead of the conspiracy is a forged order of the High Court of Gujarat, for which the accused persons are alleged to be responsible and it has been used by them in order to dupe the complainant and others. Looking to the seriousness of the offence and the fact that an order of this Court has been forged, which has given rise to the entire conspiracy and in view of the prima-facie material on record involving the applicant in the commission of the alleged offences, the application may be rejected. 6. Mr. Apurva A. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant by submitting that the applicant is not an innocent housewife as is made out to be. She is running three companies and is very much aware about the ins and outs of business transactions. 6. Mr. Apurva A. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant by submitting that the applicant is not an innocent housewife as is made out to be. She is running three companies and is very much aware about the ins and outs of business transactions. The applicant is very much a part of the conspiracy that has been hatched in order to dupe the complainant and other two persons of an amount of over rupees eight crores and the huge amounts paid by the complainant and other two persons have been transferred from the Bank account of the accused No. 1 to those of the applicant. That the applicant is writing threatening letters from jail to the complainant and, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the applicant, bail may not be granted. 7. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the application, contents of the FIR and other material on record, including the papers of the charge-sheet. From a perusal thereof, the following aspects emerge for consideration: (1) The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons have conspired and colluded with each other by giving false assurances to the complainant and two other persons and have managed to extract an amount of rupees eight crores and odd from them, on the pretext that Dena Bank has a charge of certain properties which were to be auctioned under an order purportedly made by the High Court of Gujarat, which is allegedly false, forged and fabricated by the accused persons. (2) It is the case of the prosecution that in the said order, not only has the signature of the Assistant Registrar been forged but also that of the Honourable Judge and the parties’ names have also been changed in order to add the accused persons, and even the stationery of the High Court has been duplicated, in furtherance of the conspiracy. (3) It further emerges from the record that the allegations against the accused persons are that the complainant and two other persons have been given false assurances on the basis of which they have paid over rupees eight crores at different intervals in cash, by Demand Drafts and by cheques. (3) It further emerges from the record that the allegations against the accused persons are that the complainant and two other persons have been given false assurances on the basis of which they have paid over rupees eight crores at different intervals in cash, by Demand Drafts and by cheques. Some amounts paid by Demand Draft and cash are stated to have found their way into the accounts of accused No. 1 out of which huge sums have been transferred to the account of the applicant, who is the wife of the accused No. 1. (4) Several properties worth huge sums of money have been purchased in the name of the applicant from funds withdrawn from her account. The applicant is a sole operator of her accounts and has signed the cheques towards the said transactions. The sale-deeds in regard to the property purchased by the applicant are alleged to have been signed by the applicant herself. (5) The applicant has been apprehended while travelling in a car with accused Nos.1 and 3 from which fabricated seals of Dena Bank and several other incriminating articles have been recovered. 8. Taking into consideration the above aspects which emerge from the material on record, in the view of this Court, prima-facie, the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offences is indicated. The submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a lady, who has been married for thirty years and has six children and is in custody with effect from 13.03.2009, will not mitigate the gravity of the offences alleged against the applicant in view of the material on record which points out to her prima-facie involvement in the same. The period of incarceration or the fact that the applicant is a lady, pales into insignificance in the face of the nature of conspiracy, as in the present case. It cannot be lost sight of that order of the High Court is alleged to have been forged, which is at the root of the alleged offences. Taking into consideration the material on record, nature and gravity of the offence and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view of this Court, the present is not a fit case for grant of bail. The applicant is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. 9. Taking into consideration the material on record, nature and gravity of the offence and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view of this Court, the present is not a fit case for grant of bail. The applicant is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. 9. It is made clear that the Court has considered the matter only from the perspective of bail and no observation made in this order may be taken to be on the merits of the case. The Trial Court may proceed in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. P P P P P